Technology

63746 readers

5045 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

759

Mozilla is already revising its new Firefox terms to clarify how it handles user data (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

171 comments fedilink hide all child comments

AI Summary:

Overview:

Mozilla is updating its new Terms of Use for Firefox due to criticism over unclear language about user data.
Original terms seemed to give Mozilla broad ownership of user data, causing concern.
Updated terms emphasize limited scope of data interaction, stating Mozilla only needs rights necessary to operate Firefox.
Mozilla acknowledges confusion and aims to clarify their intent to make Firefox work without owning user content.
Company explains they don't make blanket claims of "never selling data" due to evolving legal definitions and obligations.
Mozilla collects and shares some data with partners to keep Firefox commercially viable, but ensures data is anonymized or shared in aggregate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

When you pick up an apple, do you consent to the pesticides used on them?

THAT'S the example you choose?

There are no informed here, only pitchfork wielders.

Absolutely stunning. You actually unironically do not understand what consent is. You need to take an ethics class.

I'll give you the really basic version:

#1: People are allowed to say no to you for any reason or no reason at all. It doesn't matter if you think their reasons are invalid or misinformed. No means no.

#2: A lack of a "no" does not mean "yes". If a person cannot say "no" to what you are doing because they have no idea you're doing it in the first place then that, in some ways, is even worse than disregarding a "no". At least in that case they know something has been done to them.

That, by the way, is what the "informed" in "informed consent" means. It doesn't mean "a person needs to know what they're talking about in order for their 'no' to be valid", like you seem to think it means.

Doctors used to routinely retain tissue samples for experimentation without informing their patients they were doing this. The reasoning went that this didn't harm the patient at all, the origin of the tissue was anonymized, the patient wouldn't understand why tissue samples were needed anyway, and it might save lives. That's a much better justification than trying to develop a web browser, and yet today that practice is widely considered to be deplorable, almost akin to rape.